Can one criticize the Pope if one believes he is in error?

If so, to what extent?

Note: I'm not asking in terms of how nasty can we be, I'm saying to what degree can one question his actions/statements?

Personally, I feel that there are a lot of issues that people really want to set straight, and it would be a lot easier if it were done without insults. I reckon flaming people just complicates the thread and actually makes fair and valid points obscured by nonsense.

Last point, if one really feels insulted by a particular line of speaking or questioning, then it doesn't hurt to say so, but to come back with something ten times worse is just calling the kettle pot black.

-- Oliver Fischer (spicenut@excite.com), February 20, 2005

Answers

bump

-- Oliver Fischer (spicenut@excite.com), February 20, 2005.

St. Thomas Aquinas did say this:

When there is an imminent danger for the Faith, Prelates must be questioned, even publicly, by their subjects.

He also said this:

Now sometimes the things commanded by a superior are against God, therefore superiors are not to be obeyed in all things.

That last one comes fromone of the proofs in his Summa Theologica.

The first quote is seems to pertain more to your question than the second, but I figured I'd post up the second because the prime objection to questioning prelates usually always consists of a charge of disobedience.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), February 20, 2005.

Matthew, 16 :18

The words of Our Saviour Jesus Christ.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 20, 2005.

> "Can one criticize the Pope if one believes he is in error?"

A: The real question is: Who is in a valid position to determine, from amateur personal interpretations of centuries-old Church documents, that the Vicar of Jesus Christ is "in error"? Talk about theological lightweights biting off more than they can chew! How can such persons realistically expect to be taken seriously by Catholics? The Pope is backed by the promise of God Himself - "Whatsoever you bind upon earth is bound in heaven". By what are his detractors backed, other then their own private opinions? Those and $1.70 will get you a cup of coffee at Dunkin Donuts. Even if I thought the Pope was in error, I would have sense enough not to publicize my opinions, lest I be laughed out of town.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), February 21, 2005.

A good example of what you're saying, Paul-- is Henry VIII King of England. One of history's more appalling examples; he had NO USE for the words of his Pope; and since he was king,

Took for himself the title of Head of the Church of England. Poor Henry; where is he now? Just a total disgrace to Christianity.

Our lightweights around here are hardly going to steal the Pope's thunder. But they think they're kings, quite able to dismiss a Pope. They do.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 21, 2005.

"Can one criticize the Pope if one believes he is in error?"

Oliver Fischer-

Maybe the question should be "Can one Question the words or actions of The Pope?" in order to try and gain understanding without being persecuted or put down.

-- Michael G. (NoEmail@Nowhere.no), February 21, 2005.

"Talk about theological lightweights biting off more than they can chew! How can such persons realistically expect to be taken seriously by Catholics? The Pope is backed by the promise of God Himself - "Whatsoever you bind upon earth is bound in heaven". By what are his detractors backed, other then their own private opinions?"

But Paul, if you take a close look, with all due respect, you're doing this very kind of lightweight private interpretation yourself at least to some small degree in the above paragraph.

The underlined part is one such because it doesn't really provide the most proper sense of what that binding/loosing passage refers to. It's primary sense is actually the institution of the Sacrament of Confession. Council of Trent, Session 14, Canon 10:

If anyone says that priests who are in mortal sin have not the power of binding and loosing, or that not only priests are the ministers of absolution but that to each and all of the faithful of Christ was it said: Whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed in heaven; and whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them, and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained; by virtue of which words everyone can absolve from sins, from public sins by reproof only, provided the one reproved accept correction, and from secret sins by voluntary confession, let him be anathema."

Not that it doesn't have anything to do with the primacy of Peter, because it does. Not saying that it doesn't. It's just that it's not the primary sense.

But even the 1983 Code of Canon Law allows leaves a loophole for such discussion:

Canon 212 §3 "They (the Catholic lay people) have the right, indeed at times the duty, in keeping with their knowledge, competence and position, to manifest to the sacred Pastors their views on matters which concern the good of the Church. They have the right also to make their views known to others of Christ’s faithful, but in doing so they must always respect the integrity of faith and morals, show due reverence to the Pastors and take into account both the common good and the dignity of individuals."

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), February 21, 2005.

but in doing so they must always respect the integrity of faith and morals, show due reverence to the Pastors, and take into account both the common good and the dignity of individuals

Ironically (considering who posted the quotation) these are things that Emerald and other quasi-Catholics too often fail to do.

-- (Yikes@Yikes.com), February 21, 2005.

Well, there are two things going on here. First of all there is example - such as St Peter gave in Antioch which prompted St Paul to rebuke him... in other words, no so much a Papal teaching with the bells and whistles...but a Papal action (or inaction) such as some "pastoral solution" which has dubious doctrinal support...or a difference of prudential decision.

Then there is the straight up dispute on questions of doctrine.

Now if someone begs to differ with the Pope on a key point of his doctrine - i.e. gainsay what he wrote in Evangelium Vitae for example, then this someone would be in hot water.

But if the someone just thinks that the Pope ought to have cracked heads (such as the American clergy or theologians) sooner rather than wait them out... then that's a legitimate argument.

Because in the latter case we are not questioning the Pope's authority or orthodoxy, merely disputing the prudence of a particular action.

No one claims the Pope is perfect - i.e. can do nothing wrong. Infallibility pertains to his ex cathedra teaching.

In times past Popes have not been on the cutting edge of every disputed question, to the chagrin of many who wished they'd lead from the front rather than the rear. But such is life.

St Catherine of Sienna didn't claim the Pope was unorthodox by staying in Avignon...she thought he was wrong from a false prudence.

In the case of JP2, he himself has mentioned that he knows his weakness is administration and discipline. He tends to give people alot of leeway (the howls of the libs notwithstanding). Charlie Curran wasn't zapped from on high overnight. It took "Rome" OVER ten years to rein him in.

If there is any common grieviance of Catholics in America it's this lag time between crime and punishment. But the Pope wishes to err on the side of caution whereas we want to err on the side of the faithful being scandalized.

Which "side" is right? Not having all the facts of all matters, I don't know.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), February 21, 2005.

this battle was lost and won at Vatican I.

the Bolognese Cardinal, Guidi, an infallibilist, challenged the original title of the defition - On the Infallibility of the Roman Pontiff - and it later appeared as "On the Infallible Teaching Authority of the Roman Pontiff". the Council says: "..we judge it absolutely necessary to affirm solemnly the prerogative which the only-begotten Son of God was pleased to attach to ***the supreme pastoral office***."

2 things, therefore:

1/ the infallibility is of the teaching office, not the individual Pope. it is not personal in that sense. that means, for starters, that we must respect ALL teachings to which teachings this prerogative has been attached, regardless of how old they might be or who taugh them.

2/ everything else is FALLIBLE. it could be WRONG. virtually EVERYTHING the Holy Father has produced is FALLIBLE, and the Second Vatican Council is FALLIBLE (save, in each case, inasmuch as they restate previous infallible teaching).

what then of these codes of canonl law that mean that, though the Pope is plainly teaching fallibly, he cannot be criticised - or the doubter is committing some kind of wrong?

you can put the Pope on a pedastel, but it is the teaching office that is infallible not the Pope.

how exactly do you know you are in "disobedience" or in "false obedience".

doesn't that take us back to the infallible teaching authority - we read the previous ex cathedra and other infallible teachings. we read Cantate Domino and wonder why Cardinal Casper considers the Old Law Salvific for Jews.

these notions of absolute obedience belong, in any event, to some Communist regime. its personal Papal infallibility by the back door.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 21, 2005.

"Can one criticize the Pope..." I'm not certain that I'm quite comfortable with the word "criticize" when it come to His Holiness, the Pope.

I am comfortable with the word "question"..similar to what Michael G had to say earlier in this post. "Questioning" the statements and ideas promulgated by the Pope in order to gain a better understanding of what he is communicating is not a bad thing.

Father Paul said on another thread that the "fault" of the Church prior to Vatican II was that individuals merely memorized the catechism without any real understanding of what was being taught. I would think that the same "fault" would apply to this issue as well if individuals did not think it were appropriate to question what the Pope had to say in order to gain a clearer understanding of what he means. Particularly so, if they are confused when it APPEARS as if one Pope contradicts what another Pope has already said on a matter of doctrine.

These things are terribly confusing.

Outright inflammatory attacks on the Papacy on the other hand, go far beyond mere "criticism".

-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), February 21, 2005.

"The question comes down to this: the power of the Pope within the Church is supreme, but not absolute and limitless, because it is subordinate to the Divine authority which is expressed in Tradition, Holy Scripture, and the definitions already promulgated by the Church’s magisterium. In fact, the limits of papal power are set by the ends for which it was given to Christ’s Vicar on earth, ends which Pius IX clearly defined in the Constitution Pastor aeternus [Infallibility definition] of the First Vatican Council. So in saying this I am not expressing a personal theory.

Blind obedience is not Catholic; nobody is exempt from responsibility for having obeyed man rather than God if he accepts orders from a higher authority, even the Pope, when these are contrary to the Will of God as it is known with certainty from Tradition. It is true that one cannot envisage such an eventuality when the Papal infallibility is engaged; but this happens only in a limited number of cases. It is an error to think that every word uttered by the Pope is infallible."

that's Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre's answer.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 21, 2005.

There is a difference between disagreeing with the Pope or any religious superior over a difference of prudence and disagreeing - and disobeying a superior in a direct way.

The proud schismatic French Archbishop (who elevated him to that status anyway?) mistook the second for the first.

If the question is how best to deal with wayward theologians...and the Pope decides to just go over their heads by teaching directly to the people via encyclicals and world youth days, eclipsing them rather than excommunicating them...he may have a good point.

But alot of the disputes are about what the Pope does as opposed to what he actually teaches...

So we get so-called traditionalists (*who don't know tradition and don't know theology) accusing him of syncritism when he meets heads of other religions but nowhere do we READ the Pope actually teaching that there is religious relativism. In fact, we read the opposite.

But they confuse form for substance...just as they misunderstand rubric for sacrament.

Diplomacy and patience with wayward sheep, whereas we'd blast them with immediate excommunication is a dispute over prudence, not a dispute over doctrine.

Diplomacy with Muslims - being nice to them - is never the same thing as claiming that their beliefs are equivalent to our faith (indeed the Pope has taught exactly the opposite - belief is not the same thing as faith. Belief comes from the human mind, whereas Faith is a theological virtue (i.e. comes from God).

But the Pope has to deal with a billion Muslims and speak in ways calculated to protect the millions of Catholics who live as minorities in Muslim countries. Fulminating condemnations would win him some small support among arm-chair pontifs in this country but would ignite a bloodbath in those countries.

Some people demand that the Pope take action politically - ignoring the fact that the laity ARE the Pope's divisions. You can't expect a general to do the work of privates and sargents. Or Lieutenants. Give the Pope some of your own initiatives and efforts and he'll be better equipted to deal with problems.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), February 21, 2005.

"But alot of the disputes are about what the Pope does as opposed to what he actually teaches... "

is that really true? is there really a great difference?

if you read Dominus Iesus, you might wonder where Original Sin and the Sacraments have gone to. salvation for all is a **real possibility**. salvation for non-Christians is actually through the Catholic Church.

the Church is the "only" way to salvation, but She saves people who have no intention of joining and do not accept Jesus as God.

"Outside the Church..." becomes "Without the Church...".

the Canons at Trent and other Councils rendered meaningless.

would you accept the [hypothetical] position that, if the Pope teaches falsely, the faithful have a right to create a fuss and to be "disobedient"?

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 21, 2005.

"The proud schismatic French Archbishop (who elevated him to that status anyway?) ..."

Pius XII.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 21, 2005.

I don't see how or where JP2 has "rendered" Trent or any council useless!

I do see where despite all he teaches, those whose job it is to spread that teaching, explain it, defend it, and enforce it, have indeed either betrayed their office or done horrible jobs.

The early Church had problems in Antioch too - and the likes of St Paul and Barnabas weren't sufficient to convince the Judiazers that they were wrong... but the Council of Jerusalem was the begining of the end of the troubles...not only did the apostles write a letter (the document) they also sent personal representatives to make sure the document was implemented.

That is the prototype of all successful councils - not just make the teaching, but get personal representatives to shepherd the people through it...

Those places that had such shepherds following Vatican II have seen relatively few problems. Those places (ahem, USA, Canada, Western EU) let the theologians and news Media do the talking and explaining and got all fouled up.

But what is the solution if not an active and loyal laity that does what is canonically and socially possible for it to do, namely evangelize whether or not the clergy and bishops are making this easy or not?

Time and again the Church's teaching has called for an active laity and spelled out what our rights, duties, and responsibilities are - and it's NOT to shut up and just keep paying the bills no matter what!

What would you rather have, a holy bishop who gets it right 100% of the time, but is a prisoner of a dictatorship which hampers all of his initiatives and limits his teaching? Or a lax bishop in a political regime that makes it easy for laity to obey Rome no matter what?

We have romantic notions of the persecuted Church that just manages to keep the faith... but in the process loses to history millions of souls who otherwise would have actually HEARD the Gospel and been saved from hell.

Here in this country we don't have to suffer the ultimate price for being Catholic...the road is easy and smooth for us to work and live publicly our faith and share it with others...but we DO often have to suffer through watered down homilies, inane pastoral letters and bureaucratic dithering that allows the least formed theologically to brow beat those who could hand them their lunch even on a bad day.

So what are we to do? Complain? Useless! Rebelling as in frontal assaults on the person or authority of a bishop is simply stupid and counter productive. It doesn't save souls because it doesn't inform minds or win hearts. It merely feeds passions.

If a local bishop does nothing or next to nothing to teach and defend Catholic teaching there ARE many avenues left open to laity to do the work of evangelization without him, as opposed to against him.

Let's say he isn't a bright bulb in theology or moral theology. Fine. That doesn't keep you from writing editorials or books or pamphets or working in CCD or CYO or KofC or a dozen other diocesan or parish based arenas where you can help inform your fellow Catholics of Catholic teaching!

Let's say he won't denounce some notorious theologian or DRE. Fine. You can! You can debate them, show the world where they're wrong and with constant pressure run them out of town while educating the world of the truth.

At no time does one have to be angry, confrontational, or outright disobedient to legitimate decisions and commands.

For example: say a bishop hears that you are a member of a movement and bans you from using the parish to have meetings. Fine. Meet at home. No big deal.

Keep meeting and recruiting members - it's your right as a Catholic lay person (and a citizen via freedom of association). He may forbid you to call a school you found "Catholic". Fine. Build and run it anyway. The bottom line is, your kids are being educated in the faith whether he likes it or not.

Then invite well-known Cardinals to come to your schools' events and invite the Bishop! Make sure you have a video camera and recorder on hand to record his gracious remarks at the Mass... and THEN re-send your request to get "official" recognitition for the school!

Keep growing and keep volunteering for parish and diocesan work. He may not like your orthodoxy and pastoral approach but there'd be no canonic or civil reason to discriminate against you!

Let's say you hear he or his staff allow non- or anti-Catholics to work for the chancery. Hey, if they're hiring, why not volunteer your time? It's simple politics: if you have numbers, you have clout.

More than half the problems are personal anyway...personal and personnel! Half the scandals involve not the intent but the people sent to do something not doing it or screwing it up and thus defeating the purpose (this is how the schism with the East finally erupted in 1054 - the Papal Legate was an idiot and a proud, vain, and disrespectful idiot whose idea of diplomacy was to demand everyone bow to him).

At no time does one need to stand on a soap box and condemn him publicly. You can do it daily on a private basis...or simply fight darkness with lighted candles instead of curses.

Eventually, if your cause is true and just, you will simply have more people on your side than are on his, and then you can de-fund his projects while funding those that are in 100% fidelity to the Pope's and the Faith...and he will buckle or be replaced.

Humility, availability, kindness and patience can convert souls better than fulminating denouncements (even though the later feel better and require less self-control).

And in the end, by proceeding in this fashion, you will have equiped the diocese with a sizable cadre of active, informed, holy laity who could then REALLY make hay for the Church with a good, active bishop at the helm.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), February 21, 2005.

Ian; what are you saying here?

'' . . . the Church is the only way to salvation but She saves people who have no intention of joining and do not accept Jesus as God.

"Outside the Church..." becomes "Without the Church."

The Canons at Trent and other Councils rendered meaningless.''

That's ridiculous. The Church only DEFINES what salvation is, for those outside her fold on earth. She defines perfectly what YOU stubbornly deny;

That ultimately GOD alone saves, and when it's through His Church in the world, CHRIST brings salvation-- and when God Himself in His infinite Wisdom and Mercy avails a repentent soul (non-Catholic, Jew or any sect) of the Church's salvation it is STILL being given from His Holy Son's inifinite merits. The Saviour is Jesus every time! Not faith in some alien religion. That's the point of the Holy Gospel.

This is Catholic doctrine simplified and defined. If I can understand it, why shouldn't the Golden Circle of elitie Catholics NOT understand it? Because they won't trust the authority of our Pope? Our Popes never made Trent and other Councils ''meaningless. YOU make our Popes' teachings meaningless in your contumacy.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 21, 2005.

Eugene

if you want to discuss Dominus Iesus, fine. start a thread. this thread is about something else.

i'll start the thread if you want. we can go through DI line-by- line. we can hold it up against Trent and Florence and Vat I and other Councils and ex cathedra definitions.

for now, i am reading what Joe has to say. you should too. it's very interesting.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 21, 2005.

For now I was replying to some false premises you insisted on making above.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 21, 2005.

"For now I was replying to some false premises you insisted on making above."

really Eugene?

well maybe we need to get that other thread started ASAP.

i'll do it later tonight, if i get the chance.

if you don't mind, i'll start with the guts - the bits in DI that are operative rather than descriptive.

if you want, you go first. let me know.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 21, 2005.

I sometimes contribute to a stray thread, if it seems interesting. Take your chances. I know somebody here will entertain you. Maybe not me; but there's a chance.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 21, 2005.

One of my premises is that lay people ought not try to do the Bishop's job... or the Pope's. Things that go bad don't always go bad solely because a bishop didn't say the right thing, and they won't be put right if he suddenly does start saying the right thing.

We have our duties and rights, and they have theirs. Like generals they can do great things on the strategic level but rarely do generals make things happen tactically - on the local level.

The same goes with the Church. If the Pope has spelled out the faith sufficiently (and he has) we ought to be able to take those teachings and apply them or at least make the case that they ought to be applied to specific circumstances without waiting for the local bishop or pastor to take the lead.

Theology of the body for example: many priests and bishops haven't read the Pope's audiences on this much less any systematic study of them...but that doesn't keep us laity from gathering among ourselves and studying this and then applying it through ingenious ways.

The old "let's wait and see what the Bishop or pastor has to say before doing anything" approach is dead. We simply can't afford to wait until all the stars are lined up before doing our duty.

In many dioceses we're simply not going to be ordered to promote the faith, and it's not going to be in the form of a top-down blueprint of action mandated and paid for by the bishop.

Look at the pro-life movement - it's not what it is thanks to the USCCB or any diocesan bureaucracy! It is mostly an ad hoc mishmash of a dozen or so privately founded groups who fund themselves and do their own work. Most have the approval of their local dioceses, but they weren't founded and aren't funded by the dioceses.

Fr Paul Marx founded HLI amid extremely adverse conditions set down by his own abbot. But he did good work and Human Life International took off and did alot of good work.

American Life League was born around the same time by a housewife - and it too is alive and well some 25 years later - privately funded and organized.

Priests for Life - ditto.

EWTN...the bishops tried and failed with 100 million dollars, but the plucky little sister succeeded, on her own, thanks to the generosity of millions.

Look at all the good work Focus on the Family has done - and they're Protestant! There's no reason why Catholics couldn't organize themselves along those lines...except that unlike most Protestants, we spend a good chunk of our tithe on school tuition!

Great work has been done by lay people working together in fidelity to the Magisterium but without the need for the Church's hierarchy to micromanage and fund every detail.

Don't like your pastor's watered down homilies? Has it ever occured to you that perhaps HE doesn't realize they're watered down and that people would love a more detailed "and therefore in concrete this is what Catholics ought to do" approach?

Invite him over to a steak dinner and as tactfully as possible encourage him to read up on some topic - offer to be his research assistant for some particular area of moral theology...give him the best literature. Buy him a gift subscription to Homiletic and Pastoral Review or Sacerdos Magazine... or the National Catholic Register.

Volunteer to teach CCD or run an adults Church document group...

But whatever you do, don't try to do the Bishop's job for him. He's the pastor, we're the sheep. Yes, sometimes the pastor(s) leave much to be desired. Yes, sometimes some are of questionable morals or orthodoxy - as it happened in the time of the Arians, so it's always a possibility...

But what? Evangelize him as a lay person, not as a Pope! We have the GOOD NEWS...which means it's better news than ANYTHING else out there. It alone will make people happy and it alone is totally true... don't give in to depression or impatience. The truth and good win in the end. Be ingenious. Find out who his golfing partners are and work on THEM...

You'll win his soul and save a diocese - without needing to risk rebellion and any ecclesial penalty.

If all else fails, bake him some cookies and go to Eucharistic adoration...

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), February 21, 2005.